Bipartisanship, that wonderful thing…
Based on observing the Republicans for the past six years, bipartisanship is useful only as bait to bushwack your opponent. Democrats seem have been taking their cues from Mister Smith Goes to Washngton, while Republicans have been emulating Thunderdome. It’s about time we fight back instead of unilaterally disarming. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
More importantly, it means the next guy to promise to be different won’t be believed. Obama brought out a lot of young, naive, new voters who bought what he was selling. They won’t get fooled again.
I’d best concede that point, don’t know anyone as likely as you to have his finger on the pulse of today’s youth, be tuned in to their wavelength.
I can read exit polls. Your coalition of the ascendant is crumbling,and you can thank one guy for it.
Wait, what? The thing with the youth vote was them not turning out, how do you read the exit polls of the people who weren’t there? Ouija boards?
And why didn’t they turn out? Because they got tricked into wasting their time once. Never again. You’ll never be able to rely on those voters again. Obama squandered that goodwill. But what does he care? I don’t think he spends a minute worrying about any other Democrat’s career. He’s certainly destroyed enough of them. What’s one more when Hillary Clinton goes down thanks to him? He’ll still yuck it up.
Ah, I didn’t ask you why they weren’t there, I asked how you got exit polls from people who weren’t there.
Of course, if I had asked you why you thought they were not there, yours would have been an interesting, albeit predictable, answer. But no.
adaher, please put “(Obama personal hatred thread)” in the thread title when you start a thread that inevitably goes like this. That way I can avoid the ones that provide zero in terms of reasonable analysis and nothing beyond your extreme personal vitriolic disdain.
That isn’t based on politics though, not really. All Americans should want States like Mississippi to be receiving a disproportionate share of dollars because it, gradually, should help Mississippi be developed into a State “closer to the mean.” It’s a lot better relative to the rest of the country today than it was in 1900, but is still quite bad off. Unless you sought to deny poor people Federal poverty benefits based on their residence in red states it is simply impossible for a red state that is poor to not receive large subsidies from the Federal government.
LBJ looked at Appalachia during his Presidency and found a literal third world country hidden in the hills in the eastern United States, and established programs designed to end this. It didn’t quite work, but of the counties covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission far more are ranked “competitive”, or “transitional” than were when LBJ started the program (and less are ranked “distressed” or “at risk”), only six counties in the 13 States with ARC coverage are ranked at “attainment” (which essentially means they are economically robustly developed with all economic and social markers in line with the rest of the country or better.) But anyway, these programs are necessary and are likely to always benefit conservative voters more than liberals.
So too the Western States, where often the Federal government owns more than 50% of the land in the State and is required to manage and maintain it. The Federal government could fix the subsidy imbalance there significantly be giving the land to the States (east of the Mississippi there is very little Federally owned land, never amounting to a large portion of any individual State), but the Feds prefer to keep the land.
Interesting. According to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating is highest among these demographics (setting aside political affiliation):
African Americans: 86% approve
Hispanics: 65% approve
18-25: 61% approve
I eagerly await your response in which you repeat your claim that young people and Hispanics have been burned by Obama and are lining up to vote for Bobby “Kenneth from 30 Rock” Jindal. Because I know it is coming.
Skewed, or unskewed?
And some posters still convince themselves Democrats play hardball less than Republicans. They both come from the same self interest school of politics.
So the article at least shows they they tried to control for some factors. Let’s look at that:
So 1.3 percent is the difference in totals dollars. It’s a pretty small difference. Is that even statistically significant? The article doesn’t say anything about error bars or significance. Even if it’s significant, that’s actually pretty impressive compared to what I expected.
Ohhh but the article also has data on Bush and Clinton using same methodology.
Hmmmmm… so assuming everything is statistically significant and there aren’t other appropriate controls that were more relevant pre-Obama, his administration is showing less partisan results.
Now there’s not much I like about Obama. I don’t think he’s a particularly effective executive. **There is a change for the better under him in this study though. ** Maybe that is because he’s not good as an executive and is failing to meet his partisan money directing schemes. Maybe he’s genuinely less partisan in directing the funding. Either way a solid move towards less partisan numbers.
I bet he doesn’t get re-elected POTUS come 2016; you mark my words.
This is really more of a Great Debate than an Elections discussion.
Off to GD.
I am shocked, shocked! that money and politics are somehow linked. I’ll never vote for Obama for President again.
I assume that the Medicaid money red state governors have refused is not in this study. That would make the differences even greater. Perhaps the red states don’t make grant proposals because Washington is so evil?
BTW, that these studies can be made shows that there is transparency. That just means that the data is available, not that every thing anyone does is published.
I wonder if those who wish we had the kind of government we had in the 19th century love patronage too.
Man, I really miss that “Unskewed polls” guy, and his insightful and 100% wrong analysis.
sigh
Some red (governed) states, such as Wisconsin, have refused federal grants for high speed rail and expansion of Medicaid, among other things. Seems like their own fault.
This saved me from writing a reply, because basically I agree with this entirely. Red states get less money because they want less government. They are simply getting what they asked for.